Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Msxyz

  1. The game makes a basic use of 3D graphics yet it's very intensive for what it displays... Of course it won't be a problem for people using modern desktops but for people with integrated graphics it's a different story.


    I tried to install it on a MacBook Pro Late 2013 with Intel HD5100 GPU (it's about as fast as current AMD 'A' series APUs) and I had to scale back resolution down to 1280x800. Just to put this into perspective, I can run Skyrim at high detail on the same system, at same resolution and with all the sliders set to the max, at a solid 30 fps.


    I do believe the culprit is Unity as Endrosz says. For the level of 3D processing required by PoE (pre-rendered backgrounds, unlike, for example, Neverwinter Nights), any 10 years old mid-range card should be more than enough. I hope Obsidian will put some effort in this aspect too.

  2. "Listen to your community, but be aggressive in your triage and remember that game development requires enlightened despotism, not democracy. Communities are diverse and as such you’ll get conflicting opinions. You need a strong core vision to guide you through their feedback, and you need to stick to that vision, no matter how vocal they become. But you do need to listen and recognize the underlying causes of problems being reported. Often communities will complain about the symptoms of something that’s wrong and it’s not always easy to discover what the root cause is. 


    Also remember that the vocal minority does not represent the majority, no matter how hard their claims. The majority doesn’t have time to write thousands of posts. And if you encounter some uncivilized people on a forum,  ignore them. They’re not worth the emotional stress they may cause. You wouldn’t deal with them in real life either."


    - Wise words from Swen Vincke @ Larian Studios, which I feel are quite appropriate for this and some other topics here.


    Enlighted dispotism is an excellent principle in theory but fails in practice, especially when you mistake confidence and inability to understand the other people's point of view for true enlightment. History teaches us that despots meet often unhappy ends and even the few that successfully accomplished something (and peacefully died in their beds) couldn't prevent their creations to crumble when they were no longer around to impose their will.


    Just because this time Obsidian doesn't work for a publisher that set their schedule and goals, it doesn't mean they can do as they please, especially since these issues are raised from the very people who funded their game!


    Swen flatly stated that he will no longer use this method of fundraising! I can't really blame him because I understand he must have felt constantly pulled in different directions by the community. However, he has carefully listened to the feedback to the point of almost completely overhauling the gameplay so close to the release. There are no reason to expect anything less from Obsidian.

  3. IndiraLightfoot:


    Having a queued set of events indeed makes things harder to follow. In classic turn based mechanics, simple actions are completed within one turn while the most complex ones require multiple ones. Thus, the subdivision of actions into "finite" slices of time typical of turn based combats makes very easy to understand what's going on in the battlefield and to strategically conduct the fight. Interruption is contemplated as the chance to disrupt those actions which take more than one turn. 


    In PoE the asynchronicity between the actors makes very difficult to issue commands at the right time unless the game is systematically paused. Questionable design choices aside, I feel most of the current difficulties stem from being able to click on the commands fast enough after having understood what's going on in the screen.


    The (sad) irony in all of this is that, under layer of abstractions and obtuse math, Obsidian ended up designing PoE more as an action RPG than a RTwP game, since it's the eyes, the nibleness of fingers and ability to quick reasoning that are constantly pushed!

    • Like 1



    Well, I'm a bit on the basic side when it comes to combat myself (I prefer it to be easier), but I think it's worth mentioning that for PoE to succeed it has to be accessible to a broader base of players than truly hardcore IE fans who have already bought it for the most part.  In that sense I think BG-esque easy trash mobs with more intricate special encounters would be better, with the option of cranking difficulty up to what we're seeing here in the beta if one prefers it.


    It doesn't. That's the point. It was kickstarted and crowdfunded for it to not cather to everyone and their mom but to have a fixed target audience.


    If Obsidian dumbed the game down just for the sake of cathering to more people, broader audience, like is so popular now with big brands, then it would be the last time they saw my money.

    Poe is only supposed to be as difficult as BG2. Even if it were meant to be more challenging (which it isn't), having the trash mobs, special encounters, and bosses be tactically challenging is simply poor game design. It will be mentally draining and the game will feel repetitive since every battle will go on too long and the difficulty won't ever spike thus lacking variety.


    Not to mention a flat difficulty curve will make special battles less memorable. 


    Remember that in the IE games the trash mobs died easily. It served the IE games well and poe would be wise to emulate them.


    I think you have a skewed memory of BG2 encounters difficulty in your first playthrough. That is the difficulty that PoE should be compared too, not the difficulty after your 10th playthrough of BG2 when you know exactly all encounters and already pillaged the best weapons and armors.

    I reinstalled recenly BG2, after nearly 8 yrs since I had last played it, and I did experience some difficulties at the beginning. However, after a few hours, I felt perfectly in control of my party even if, after all this time and hundreds of games played, I barely rememebered the story. D:OS is also quite brutal with beginners but it's easier to understand the mistakes, feel the 'flow' of the battle, learn the ropes.


    between the difficulty of understanding what is going on in the screen and the counter intuitive mechanics, I'm finding PoE boring, exhausting and more of a matter of repeating, at each encounter, a sequence of action which I observed to work through sheer trial and error rather than from reason.

    • Like 1
  5.  Its a common problem with rpg's that have multible approaches to a problem and give xp for every step. I can understand why the dev's decided to do it this way and some month after release we will find out what people in general think about it. 



    Many people (including me) backed this game on the perceived premise that Obsidian would have used a tried and true formula which was equally beloved by many. Instead, after the beta, I feel like I've backed an experiment (mechanics, UI, gameplay) I may like or not but; certainly, not the kind of game I hoped.


    Maybe I will end up enjoying this but, so far, PoE seems the kind of game I would normally wait purchasing until I can read reviews and impressions.


    Whom is to blame for the different expectations? Part me, I've no problem admitting this, but I'm not alone thinking the lack of XP and many other things don't make PoE really a spiritual successor of anything but a new game of its own.


    I don't feel easy just to "wait some months after release to see how it pans out" since I already paid in full and even something more...

    • Like 2

    I doubt DA:I is getting pushed back.  If it is the blow will be huge missing the holiday season especially when you consider what is releasing in February.... Witcher 3.  They need to release in that dead spot to maximize profit cause if they release with Witcher DA:I will get the short end of the stick.



    Doubt it, they managed to hype this one even more then DA2.

    Too bad the memory (and disappoinment) of DA2 is still fresh.


    I think a lot of people will wait to read reviews and hear other people's opinions before buying this.


    I'd like to wait for a whole overhaul of the mechanics, not just the XP issue.


    It's seems the main focus has been on balance rather than on fun; for a game that relies so heavily on combat as a mean of questing (by admission of the developers) it seems we've got something a good portion of the people here would rather avoid or have redesigned.


    Do we have a time scale on an overhaul and would it allow for combat xp to be added?



    It depends on how deep you want this redesign to be.


    I wouldn't be contrary to scrap the mechanics and to replace them with something Pathfinder inspired, but it would take several months, not to mention a new playtesting phase.

  8. In an online game, it's the developer responsibility to avoid situations where certain players have an advantage over the others for something else than mere ability.


    In a single player game, it's okay to let the players indulge in what they think it is more fun. Part of the reason behind the success of the Elder Scrolls games doesn't lie in the mechanics, in the story or in the gameplay, but it's because they allows players to metagame to their will without a clear direction. The availability of MODs (on PC only, though) it's the icing on the cake.

  9. I'd like to wait for a whole overhaul of the mechanics, not just the XP issue.


    It's seems the main focus has been on balance rather than on fun; for a game that relies so heavily on combat as a mean of questing (by admission of the developers) it seems we've got something a good portion of the people here would rather avoid or have redesigned.

    • Like 1
  10. Pistols should be allowed as a secondary, off-hand weapon even at the cost of a slight penalty in accuracy. Now, if we're talking about muskets and other long firearms, this is another matter entirely. I'm surprised that the fact characters can use only one hand for a pistol is considered a bug!




    It's just for the first pistol attack. You can't reload it with a melee weapon in the offhand.




    Indeed. A flintlock pistol should be considered like a "instamatic" offensive spell. You can use it once in the course of the battle and be done with it. Of course, the world of PoE seems to be advanced enough to have the so called "pepper boxes" or other style of multi barrelled weapons that were created starting from the XVI century (like a sawed off side by side granting two shots per fight). 


    Is it unbalanced? No more than a muscle wizard first showering you with fireballs and than using his mace to finish you off!


    To all who defend the 'no bad build' approach... you're want removed from this videogame the challenge of understanding a rule set.


    Screwing a character and starting over USED to be part of the challenge. It is conceptually similar to mastering the moves of a fighting game or finding the correct timing in a platform game. They can only be learned through repetition and dedication. 


    Failure is part of learning; now people are AFRAID of failure instead of seeing it as an opportunity to learn something new.



    Its a single player game around a story not a multiplayer game where you train to beat real humans.


    Edit: Also if we talk about multiplayer games here the best equivalent would be mmorpg PvP and the major problem most people have with it beside balance is that every class has one perfect cookie cutter build and does not allow variations.


    what has this to do with multiplayer? I take you'll never played those old Sierra adventures with a text parser and the nasty habit of making your PC dieing at every turn. Before the advent of multiplayer, if anything, the games were more challenging because they were meant to entertain people for a long time.



    Having significant bonuses or penalties based on race, culture, and background choices will simply mean that people start picking those options based on the class they wish to play as. It'll just end up like in the IE games, where any archer character will be an Elf.


    Race, culture, and background should ideally only affect how your character interacts with the gameworld(In the form of dialogue options, NPC reaction, alternate quest solutions, alternate quests).

    So burly dwarves should be as nimble as a wild elf and gnomes should be as strong as humans, eh?


    What's wrong with introducing a little differentiation? If anything, it brings more, interesting variations to the table and... challenges.

    • Like 1
  12. To all who defend the 'no bad build' approach... you're want removed from this videogame the challenge of understanding a rule set.


    Screwing a character and starting over USED to be part of the challenge. It is conceptually similar to mastering the moves of a fighting game or finding the correct timing in a platform game. They can only be learned through repetition and dedication. 


    Failure is part of learning; now people are AFRAID of failure instead of seeing it as an opportunity to learn something new. 

    • Like 5
  13. People who still defends the core mechanics should really try this little experiment...


    When a PC build with all attributes kept to the minimum (not using the fifty something points awarded at the creation phase) is equally viable than a character with the points well distributed, then there is something fundamentally flawed in the core system, something no amount of re-balancing can easily fix.



    Even if every backer voted for "something other than quest only XP" it still wouldn't change anything, because Sawyer thinks this system is perfect.


    <_< How about you cite your sources on that? :p Both on Sawyer thinking its perfect and that being cause of why it will never be changed?...


    Does it even matter?


    There will never be an official vote and Sawyer will never change the xp system either. I hope you enjoyed my hyperbole though.



    I would be very surprised if he will. There is a reason, after all, why some people are now calling PoE Josh's Dream RPG. There are too many things 'out of place' (for a lack of better term) in this game to be called 'a spiritual successor to the IE games'.


    I will reaffirm this concept again: the lack of combat XP alone doesn't make or break this game... but it's just the tip of the iceberg.

    • Like 2

    With over 200 votes in the poll now, the standings are like this:

    -44% wishes to see combat xp or very fine-grained xp (per encounter, per successful action)

    -29% wants quest xp or at least wide-berth objective xp

    -27% are sticking to some middle-ground, with exploration xp and objective xp per dungeon and such.

    You could also read that as ~89% of participants aren't happy with only quest xp.


    Problem is that this poll isn't representative. Mind, this doesn't just mean number of participants, but also criteria for how they are selected(which for this poll, isn't happening at all).


    I think it is quite representative. Eve if it's only ~250 persons who voted out of the 71000 backers, the sampled population is composed of persons who care enough about this game to follow the forums and that probably also pledged quite a hefty amount of money to access, among other things, the beta.


    The general opinion outside this forum about Pillars of Eternity it's either: "Pillars of what?!?" or "it will be like BG2 in a different setting".

    • Like 1
  16. Read what I exactly said. "I doubt anybody literally gave them money BECAUSE of". Sure, they could still be disappointed by the change, but I don't think that was the main reason they gave the money.


    If the new system is fixed so that it works great, then they probably won't mind it. They will mind it as long it works as bad as it does now.

    the XP system is just the tip of the ideberg.


    The gameplay mechanics are seriously flawed; I don't think it's just a matter of rebalancing the attributes. The combat is very confusing and it's difficult to follow what is going on. The game plays like a classless system but without the perks of going classless.


    In the end, it feels nothing like an IE game. Even without using the D&D ruleset, they could have designed a system with a similar approach. The lack of combat XP is just one of the myriads of changes that make PoE look like a completely different game and, certainly, not a spiritual successor of BG/IWD/PST. Just because the story is set in a high fantasy world and it uses isonometric viewport, this is not enough to label it a spiritual successor of those mentioned games.


    This is what makes me frustrated. If Obsidian had made clear that they wanted to design a RPG vaguely remineshent of some 'oldskool' games and using a novel approach, free of any publisher interference, then I would have had different expectations.

    • Like 2

    So kill XP is essentially worthless? Why waste time arguing for its inclusion then? Serious question.


    Some people want to play an adventurer/explorer and not a servant. Want to advance in level? Here are your options:


    A) Do quests for npcs like a good serf.


    B) Do quests for npcs like a good serf.


    C) Do quests for npcs like a good serf.


    D) Do quests for npcs like a good serf.

    The same can be said for companion quests. No matter if the NPCs offered as companions are liked, people starved for XP will be pushed towards completing their side quests.


    I've nothing against rewarding player for quests but it cannot be the only way.


    Atm, however, my worries are shifting more towards the general mechanics. I'll take a break for the beta, uninstall it and hope that, in two three months, it will have progressed to the point of solving many of the issues and make this game enjoyable and really close to the experience the IE games provided.

    • Like 2
  • Create New...